Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

I was looking at the semifinals groupings for last year, and noticed that finishers 10-21 all go into 1 semifinal group. Why is that? It seems that the "reward" for having a good tournament is that you get placed into a semifinal league with a whole bunch of other great players, while those in the middle get an advantage by having only 34-45 in their league. What this does is guarantee that a team that finished no better than 34th in points gets into the finals.

Why not distribute 10-11-12 in 3 leagues 1-3, 15-14-13 in leagues 1-3, then 16-17-18, and so on until all leagues are filled? This puts the top teams into different leagues which gives them a reward for having more points during the tournament.

My understanding is that these are 24 team leagues so the top 12 get placed with the bottom 12. So the 12 “best“ are in the same league with the 12 “worst“


viewtopic.php?f=7&t=648870

correct. My question is why? We are assuring that only one of the top 12 semifinals teams gets to the finals, and also assuring that someone who finished 34th or worse gets in. Seems like a penalty for finishing well but not in the top 9.

I am suggesting that the teams should be distributed across all 3 leagues so that the top 3 teams that finished in 10-12 can all get in.

A better solution would be for there to be one semifinal of only 12 teams the managers who finished 10-22 and two 24 team semis for the guys who finished below that in the tour standings. That doubles the chance of guys who did well in the tour of sending a team to the finals instead of the present format which is almost akin to a lottery. This rewards managers who did well as opposed to the present format which gives guys who finished 80 the same shot as the guy who finished 10th.

it might double the odds, but it keeps the problem (as I see it) that the top 12 teams that didn't make the finals can still only send 1 team to the finals, and its guarantees that 2 people that finished out of that top 12 semifinalists will make it through. Why do the top finishers have to battle amongst themselves for 1 spot while reserving finals spots for teams that finished middle of the pack?

pairing the seedings top to bottom might be more fair. So team 10 with 81 in league 1, 11 with 80 in 2, 12 with 79 in 3 and then keep repeating

right. That pattern I was using should give you that set of groupings.

Agreed, placing the top 12 semifinalists in the same league is a major flaw in the semis, and a detriment to the overall integrity of the tournament. It actually penalizes the top 12 semifinalists by making them play the other top 11, plus the bottom 12, for (maybe) a single finals spot.

Ridiculous that the top 12 should have to compete against each other (plus12 others) for only one spot the finals, with no guarantee that any of the top 12 will make it, while 48 lower-ranked teams are GUARANTEED two spots, without even having to play ANY of the 12 top-ranked teams.

So what's the advantage for finishing in the top 12? Exactly NONE. Instead, it's a PENALTY!

Seems like a no-brainer. Fairness requires that teams be seeded evenly into the three leagues, as others have noted above.

Of course you could just take the top 6 for byes and then have 6 divisions of 12 for semis but that argument has failed to persuade, also.